By now no one expects the Bush Administration to make itself accountable for its controversial and possibly illegal practices. But the next President will have a unique opportunity to reveal what has been kept hidden for the last seven years. Secrecy watchdog Steven Aftergood suggests a few questions for the presidential candidates about their willingness to disclose just what the current Administration has done.
By Steven Aftergood
saftergood@fas.org
In 2005, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey told colleagues at the Justice Department that they would be “ashamed” when a legal memorandum on forceful interrogation of prisoners eventually became public. In fact, however, disclosure of such secret Bush Administration documents may be the only way to begin to overcome the palpable shame that is already felt by many Americans at the thought that their government has engaged in abusive interrogations, secret renditions or unchecked surveillance.
The next President will have the authority to declassify and disclose any and all records that reflect the activities of executive branch agencies. Although internal White House records that document the activities of the outgoing President and his personal advisers will be exempt from disclosure for a dozen years or so, every Bush Administration decision that was actually translated into policy will have left a documentary trail in one or more of the agencies, and all such records could be disclosed at the discretion of the next President.
A new President may find it advantageous to quickly distinguish himself (or herself) from the current Administration and its policies. By exposing what is “shameful” in our recent past the new Administration could demonstrate a clean break with its predecessor, and lay the foundation for a more transparent and accountable Presidency.
Most of the leading candidates from both parties have specifically criticized the secrecy of the Bush Administration. In particular, those who are now serving in Congress have repeatedly been on the receiving end of White House secrecy, and may be all the more motivated to repudiate it in deed as well as in word.
“Excessive administration secrecy... feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government,” Sen. John McCain has said. “I'll turn the page on a growing empire of classified information,” said Sen. Barack Obama. “We'll protect sources and methods, but we won't use sources and methods as pretexts to hide the truth.” “We need a return to transparency and a system of checks and balances, to a president who respects Congress's role of oversight and accountability,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton.
The most troubling and the most secretive Bush Administration actions are those in the realm of national security policy, and that is the first place, though not the last, where the next Administration could constructively shed new light. It goes without saying that genuine national security secrets such as confidential sources and legally authorized intelligence methods should be protected from disclosure. But that still leaves ample room for revelation of fundamental policy choices, and certainly of any illegal or embarrassing (“shameful”) actions that may have been improperly classified to evade accountability. For example:
1. Domestic Surveillance. The White House is seeking and Congress is poised to grant retroactive immunity for telephone companies that assisted the Administration in its surveillance activities. But immunity for what? “This Administration may have enjoyed completely unrestrained access to the communications of virtually every American,” said Sen. James Webb (D-VA) earlier this month. “Do we know this to be the case? I cannot be sure. One reason I cannot be sure is that I have been denied access to review the documents that may answer these questions about the process.” Such uncertainty should be remedied once and for all by official disclosure.
2. Interrogation and Torture.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00321